OBJECTIVES: A lower ratio in the classic activated protein C resistance (APC-R) test has been reported during pregnancy, which has been called 'acquired' APC-R. However, little is known about the cause of the lowered ratio, and whether or not there is a correlation with blood coagulation activation. The primary objective of our study was to determine changes in APC-R levels in each of the trimesters of normal pregnancy. The secondary objective was to confirm whether APC-R levels were lower in pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia than in a control group. Finally, this prospective study was performed to investigate the prevalence of APC-R among pregnant women and to elucidate its obstetric consequences. METHODS: We enrolled 35 healthy pregnant women and 47 pregnant women affected by pre-eclampsia in our study. The following laboratory tests were performed: prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, fibrinogen levels, antithrombin III, plasmatic fibronectin (as a marker of endothelial damage), haptoglobin (as a marker of intravascular haemolysis), a functional test for APC-R and analysis of factor V Leiden mutation by polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: The activated protein C sensitivity ratio was lower in the pathological group than in the control group (p = 0.008 and p = 0.02, respectively). Plasmatic fibronectin was found to be higher in the pathological group than in the control group (p = 0.05). Finally, the overall prevalence of factor V Leiden mutation was 5.4%, i.e. 2/35 women (5.7%) in the control group and 3/47 women in the pathological group (6.38%). CONCLUSIONS: The APC ratio decreased after 20 weeks of gestation until week 42. This decrease was most pronounced in the third trimester, in which resistance was demonstrated in 34.2% of control group patients. In pre-eclampsia, we found a greater reduction of the APC ratio than in controls. We hypothesise that this is due to a decrease in the plasmatic levels of coagulation inhibitors and an increase in coagulatory factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paternoster et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: